@bluebayou It is not against the state constitution to seek a diverse student body or to consider socio-economic factors. However, UVAs success in attracting more URMs (and socio-economically deprived white students) is a factor of its excellent financial aid programs.
@Gator88NE UC Berkeley’s low “white” student numbers are a factor of its large Asian student population. This increase was, of course, an unintended consequence of changes to state law. People thought that the changes to the state constitution would end “affirmative action” and increase the chances of their kids being admitted. What they didn’t envisage was that Asian numbers would explode and white numbers collapse since Asian students were better qualified. Not surprising, there is now talk of repealing the changes that were enacted.
@exlibris97 – read carefully. Including the post to which I was responding. I IN NO WAY implied anything of the sort. Pretty ironic, for someone bemoaning micro-aggression on another thread.
@katliamom I was responding to the following post:
“I could ask, why is Cal not doing more to admit more black students?” Because they can’t admit by race."
I don’t see the irony? And I haven’t bemoaned micro-aggression. Just the opposite. I am adamantly opposed to trigger warnings.
UVA actually has a very low representation of students from lower-middle to lower income families (those with Pell grants) even when compared to other public universities. Only 13% of UVA undergraduates receive Pell grants.
Pell grant recipients as percentage of new and all undergraduate students in Virginia:
New All School
10% 12% William and Mary
13% 13% University of Virginia
13% 14% James Madison
15% 17% Virginia Tech
28% 29% Virginia Commonwealth
In California:
New All School
24% 31% UC Berkeley
32% 36% UC Los Angeles
36% 38% UC Santa Barbara
32% 40% UC San Diego
37% 43% UC Davis
47% 45% UC Irvine
43% 46% UC Santa Cruz
55% 58% UC Riverside
64% 62% UC Merced
It looks like UVA and other more selective Virginia publics are not doing a particularly good job at admitting students from families in the lower half of the income range (Pell grant recipients). UVA’s excellent financial aid programs are nice, but only for the relatively few from lower-middle to lower income families it does admit.
@exlibris97 You’re “adamantly” opposed to trigger warnings, but are instantly offended and jump to conclusions that I’m a bigot for stating a fact. A fact that contributed to the decline in numbers of African Americans at Cal. Oversensitive, much, are you?
You’re new on CC. If you had been here longer, you would have seen many of my posts in vocal support of Affirmative Action, and in dismay at how pop 209 negatively affected the UCs (and screwed over the black community, a huge percentage of which lives in areas with inadequate schools, poor advising and hugely limited resources.)
California may have more smart , low income kids that are able to be admitted and are also capable of doing well at schools like UCB and UCLA. To get a Pell Grant, I believe your income has to be very low. Where are all these Pell Grant recipients coming from?
Never said it was. I clearly said that affirmative action as practiced by many colleges is a no-no at UC.
btw: UC is highly focused on socio-economic factors in admissions, and this is clear from its Pell Grant numbers. The question is why are the publics in Virginia are not as hospitable. There have to be plenty of poor in the Dominion State.
UC also has a lot of outreach programs to attract a diverse applicant pool.
The Pell Grant income threshold is higher than what many people think.
https://fafsa.ed.gov/FAFSA/app/f4cForm can let you see Pell grant amounts for various hypothetical situations. Some Pell grant (obviously not the full amount) is available up to what is probably close to the median income of families with high school or college students.
@exlibris97 you can, of course, find sad whatever you wish to find sad, but the mission statement is pretty clear. http://www.ucop.edu/uc-mission/index.html It mentions California at least 10 times and mentions out of state and international… well, you can see for yourself.
What I find sad is people who want to ignore actual numbers. The simple fact is that since 2007, when the UC’s started being allowed to control their own non-resident tuition revenue that number of OOS and international students has skyrocketed while the acceptance rate has risen and quality of those students has dropped. That is just simple an-apple-will-fall fact.
Here are actual numbers from the audit. http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-107.pdf
UCB:
2007 average in state weighted GPA was 4.15. In 2014 it was 4.20
2007 average non-resident weighted GPA was 4.21 In 14 it was 4.18
Non resident weighted GPA were lower in both real and proportional terms
UCLA
2007: Res: 4.12 2015: Res: 4.21
2007: NonRes: 4.17 2015: NonRes: 4.12
UCSD
2007: Res: 4.05 2015: Res: 4.18
2007: Nonres: 4.10 2015: Res: 4.07
The rise in res average GPA and drop in nonRes GPA holds true for every campus except Merced.
At the same time the number of CA undergrads attending UCB dropped from 22,485 in '07 to 20,745 in '15 while the number of nonresident undergrads rose from 2,151 in to 6,742.
For UCLA the CA residents attending dropped from 23,731 in 07 to 22,771 in 15 and the nonresidents rose from 2197 in '07 to 6,813 in '15
UCSD CA residents went from 20,983 in 07 to 20997 in '15 while nonresidents went from 1,065 to 5,593.
UCSB CA residents rose from 17540 to 18357 while nonresident went from 875 to 2250
UCDavis: CA residents rose from 22787 to 24667 while nonresident rose from 671 to 3590
UCI: CA residents rose from 21037 to 21155 while nonresident jumped from 657 to 4100.
So for the 6 most popular, highest ranked and competitive UC campuses increased attendance of CA residents across all campuses by 130 bodies, they increased nonresident attendance by 19775.
The only campuses that substantially increased CA resident enrollment was Merced - 1739 to 6213.
Riverside increased by about 3000 CA residents and Santa Cruz increased by just more than 1000 residents while doubling the number of nonresidents.
Since 05 there has been a 432% increase in nonresident admits, versus a 355% increase in nonresident applications
In 05 nonresidents had a 48% admit rate. It is now 56%.
Perhaps it is inconvenient for some reason, but the reality is, a CA taxpayers’ kid who was born in 95, 96 or 97 had a much harder time getting into a top 6 UC than a CA taxpayers’s kid born in 85, 86, 87 at the same time it got easier for non-resident kids to get in. That’s just numbers.
And for life-long CA taxpayers whose kids have just reached college age, it is a sad trend.
.
Vote for tax increases. Vote for politicians who will increase instate funding for the UCs.
The UC Regents react:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-regents-audit-snap-story.html
Excerpt:
“UC officials have blasted the audit, saying it unfairly glossed over the fact that out-of-state students supported the 10-campus system by paying higher tuition than California residents — an extra $728 million in 2014-15 alone. That money helped campuses increase enrollment of in-state students despite the fact that the system lost one-third of its funding after the 2008 recession, according to UC President Janet Napolitano.”
Also, either the UC or UCSD appears to have launched a PR campaign over this issue. The local NPR station here in San Diego recently has been airing ads promoting the UC that loudly point out the high percentage of CA residents enrolled there.
@CaliDad2020 - I’m scooting back into this discussion for a moment… No matter how any of us feel about CA resident admissions into the UC system, comparing our kids to those in the 80s is really like comparing apples and oranges. During those years, I was accepted into the top 6 UC schools, but i had a 3.6 with one AP class (didn’t take the test) and had a really, really embarrassing score on my SAT. My best buddy got into UCLA with a 3-3.3, as did other friends. I also was admitted to private schools that would laugh at my application today. My academic ability then is so far beneath that of my children who were accepted into these schools. Also, UCLA has nearly 10,000 more students (UG and grad) than when I was in college. It is just a different world not only for all the state universities in this country but also the private ones.
@dstark California did vote for a very large tax increase recently.
There are a large number of fixes - many suggested in the audit report, many discussed by others. The first thing that should be done is to get admins who are concerned for California and Californians first. The second is to return to a “single pot” for the OOS/International tuition. That will drastically reduce the incentive to admit less-qualified out-of-state students at the expense of CA students.
It’s a big, on-going problem that will not have a simple solution and will involve an evolution of the system.
But for anyone to ignorantly suggest that the findings in the report - that non-resident standards have dropped, in state standards have increased, in state enrollment, as a raw number for UCB and UCLA have dropped. That admit rates for non-residents have increased, etc. is silly.
It’s all there to look at, plain as day.
Also, it should not be ignored that the UCs - to an extent at least - are creating this problem purposely (because the legislature allowed them to) so they can try to wrest more $$ from the state. Which is the way the game is played, I understand, but it does not change the fact a game is being played.
@Fish125 No - I mean the 80’s is a different universe. I said (or meant to say - perhaps I mistyped) BORN in 88 vs. 98 - it’s only 10 years, but was a big 10 years.
Just look at the stats.
Look - everyone needs to know 2007 with the recession, drop in tax dollars AND change in OOS/International use of tuition on the specific campuses was a BIG DEAL that changed the landscape (and the decision to put off funding pensions too, btw.) The UCs are playing a game here - as is Gov. Moonbeam and the legislature. At some point there will be a showdown and we all (CA taxpayers - the rest won’t pay or care) will have to figure out how to pay the bills and best benefit the state.
But that doesn’t change the reality that kid born in 96-98 (and their families) and applied for admission for 2014, 15 or 16 faced a radically different admissions landscape than those who applied in 2005 or 2006… That just is.
This has been posted before. This indicates that current standards for OOS and international students at UCB are not lower than the profiles of instate students. http://admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile
In regard to UVa, they have been working to increase outreach and diversity. The demographics of California and Virginia are different. California clearly has a very large pool of very high SAT kids that are also low income. They have many UC campuses in many different cities . Every state and school are doing things differently and have a right to do so. Lots of kids go to community college in Virginia, as they do in California. The UC’s seem to accept very large numbers of community college students (I saw UCB at 35%) , many of whom are Pell Grant eligible. Virginia has some articulation agreements with community colleges and there are transfers but not at the kinds of numbers the UC’s have. https://news.virginia.edu/content/president-sullivan-participates-white-house-summit-expanding-college-opportunities
UVa is the only public university that is a Questbridge partner. They are certainly not ignoring the issues. I think the Virginia college system actually does a “good job” of educating its’ citizens, as does California. https://www.questbridge.org/college-partners
@CaliDad2020 - Ahhhhhhh, totally didn’t see the word “born” in that original response! But, I still feel that you can’t compare different generations of students as the competition (and really the whole landscape of college admissions) is just so much different than it was before. Families and students are much savvier about college admissions today than they were even for my oldest kids.
@sevmom And the audit clearly indicates the weighted GPA has both dropped quite a bit and is lower than that for non-residents. I posted the stats directly from the audit. And I linked it as well. I pasted some highlights from the page below if you can’t figure out how a hyperlink works.
http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-107.pdf
In part as a consequence of BOARS’ revision, the university admitted nearly 16,000 nonresidents from academic years 2012–13 through 2014–15 who were less academically qualified on every academic indicator we evaluated—grade point averages (GPA), SAT, and ACT scores—than the upper half of residents whom it admitted at the same campus, as shown in Figure 6 on the following page. Had the university followed the Master Plan, it would not have admitted these nonresidents and could have instead admitted additional residents.
Furthermore, the university places extra weight on high school GPAs as a predictor of college performance. The average GPA for admitted domestic nonresidents for six of nine campuses has been lower than the GPA for admitted residents since academic year 2010–11.
3 - As we show in Table 5 on page 29, the university’s practice of admitting domestic nonresidents with lower GPAs became widespread beginning in academic year 2010–11. When evaluating all academic indicators separately in the context of the Master Plan’s recommendations, the university’s admission decisions have favored nonresidents. For example, as shown in Table 6 on page 30, the university has admitted nearly 61,000 nonresidents with unweighted GPA scores that fell below the upper half of residents since academic year 2006–07—nearly 36,000 of those in the past three academic years after changing its admission standard. Moreover, in academic year 2014–15 alone, the university admitted more than 9,400 nonresidents whose SAT reading math scores and more than 11,200 nonresidents whose SAT writing scores fell below the upper half of residents’ scores.
Figure 6
The University of California Admitted Nearly 16,000 Nonresident Undergraduates Over the Past Three Academic Years With Grade Point Averages and Scores on All Tests That Fell Below the Median of Admitted Residents
Table 5 -
In Recent Academic Years, Most Campuses Have Admitted Domestic Nonresident Undergraduates With Lower Weighted Grade Point Averages Than Residents They Admitted
UCB: 05-06 - 06-07 – 07-08 – 08-09 – 09-10 – 10-11 – 11-12 – 12-13 – 13-14 – 14-15
Res: 4.14 - 4.15 - 4.15 - 4.16 - 4.16 - 4.18 - 4.19 - 4.19 - 4.20 - 4.20
Nonres: 4.21 - 4.21 - 4.22 - 4.23 - 4.19 - 4.13 - 4.09 - 4.13 - 4.17 - 4.18
I, of course, have not seen the applications. I am assuming you have not either. So we can look at the fact that -
Berkeley had 2151 nonresident students in 2007 and 6742 in 2015. And I think we can make some judgement about whose numbers are more likely to be accurate. (I don’t think that the UCs even challenged the audit’s numbers, they did challenge using GPA as they are “holistic…”
I think higher numbers of OOS and international students at many schools are the new reality.